KryoFlux^® Support Forums

It is as much an independent program as the display drivers in the Linux kernel As I've said upthread, the kernel is a special case, if nothing else because of Linus's comments on the subject. and there is not only the view of the FSF True. However, they pay professional IP lawyers for their advice...

As far as i understand, the ipflibrary contains eg a whole emulator of a disk controller, is used in many (5 up to now) programs and thus qualifies as a separate and independent work. Again, the FSF's lawyers would disagree with you; that clause is for the distribution of GPL code on a medium (eg a...

Tuxie wrote:Wouldn't the MAME license prevent shareware emulators from using it?

Yes, but there's nothing to stop the SPS team giving shareware emulator authors a free license to use the software.

So I take it that pak21 isn't the copyright holder of fuse, and thus he is bound by gpl, if he was, he could freely link to the lib under the mame license? I am the copyright holder for the majority of Fuse, but not all of it. If I were, I could relicense the code and link to any library I choose (...

pak21: In that case one may even remove completely who made it etc. and present it as their own work - or is that not the case? The GPL explicitly requires that you keep all copyright notices intact. Arbee and pak21: adding those to the source code wouldn't make GPL users unhappy? ie showing that i...

Is it a reasonable request that licensees using either version would either add a pointer how/where others could access the licensing options or ask them to include all the licences that may be chosen? How would this work in practice? You cannot make that a requirement for the GPL-licensed version ...

L compatible (say MAME) license, aside from the obvious implications from FUSE implementation (which therefore wouldnt affect, say, ZXSPin), how would you then view the whole scenario then compared to say, now or this time last year? Definitely better than now. Not as good as it could be, because I...

Tuxie wrote:The SDKs you need to link with to create XBox/PS3/Wii software are to the best of my knowledge already incompatible with GPLv3 so anyone wanting to use the IPF library for that purpose can't choose GPLv3.

The stuff for doing Wii homebrew is definitely GPL-compatible.

If you "license under the GPL and be done with it" then you are effectively shutting out all emulators not under the GPL. That's why I suggested dual licensing. Good point. If I'm understanding this correctly you want a license that is: a) GPL compatible b) Compatible with Open Source lic...

Or do you mean, that they'd find the GPL undesirable, and would choose to licence the product otherwise? Absolutely. Wouldn't the effect more likely to be not even considering it as a workable solution? Quite possibly - but exactly the same is going to apply if you choose (say) the MAME license. Ce...